- LAPLACE, https://ldas-jobs.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/~sayantani.datta/LSC/lalinference/O3/o3_b_tgr/sim/SummaryPages/S200316bj/Prod2/LAPLACE/laplace_bbh.txt, not passed?
- Extra features in mass posteriors for both SIQM and BBH runs
- Does the Mc-q prior translates to a boundary at lower m1-prior? I mean the m1 prior hits the lower mass end. Probably the Mc prior has to be widened
- I think the mass features are more dominant for BBH runs.
- dKs look fine.
- S191216ap:
- dKs, long-tail on the positive side? could be a sampling issue?
- Mass parameters prior have to be checked here too. See total-masses for instance, are they hitting the boundary or is it just a sharp end of posterior
- S200225q
- For S200225q (this is the event with final results available)
Railing against mass prior? I think this is a common issue for all events
- Mc bimodal for PE Prod but not for dKs run, see here
Compare to other events, there is more difference b/w BBH and dKs runs (masses, spins, distance)
- dKs looks fine
- S191204r
- Mc-q prior transformation to m1-m2 has to be checked. (like all other events LAPLACE complaints about mtotal railing)
- Other posteriors including dKs look fine
- S200129m
- luminosity distance bimodality: BBH cases for prel results and final runs; also visible from PE summary and CBCBayesCompos
